The following scurrilous attack constitutes a declaration
of war by the Ford Foundation, the flagship foundation of the US ruling
elite and the foundation most engaged in the suppression of domestic political
opposition, against the Philadelphia Platform of July 4, 2007, and the
Kennebunkport Warning, published on August 26, 2007. These documents can
be viewed at actindependent.org. The author of the following screed is
the slimy character assassin Chip Berlet, the leading figure of Political
Research Associates of Massachusetts, an entity which, according to published
accounts, received some $325,000 in funding from the Ford Foundation between
2002 and 2006.

This article represents a strategic decision on the part
of Berlet's Ford Foundation paymasters that the Philadelphia and Kennebunkport
documents represent a threat to the political hegemony of the financier
elite who are betting on synthetic terrorism, new false flag operations,
and a nuclear attack on Iran to clear the way for totalitarian rule in
the US. The Ford Foundation is now committing considerable resources, not
just to maintain the US peace, impeachment, and anti-globalization movements
in their current fragmented and ineffective form, but also specifically
to sabotage the Philadelphia and Kennebunkport initiatives.

From now on, as a rule of thumb, it will be fair to say
that those seeking to tear down the Philadelphia and Kennebunkport convergence
clearly represent the running dogs of the Ford Foundation, operating as
stooges, pawns, foot soldiers and water carriers for the infamous Berlet,
and deserving to be exposed as such. Whether they are conscious, paid agents
or merely dupes can be determined later on. We must also recall that, under
Reagan's Executive Order 12333, the classic functions of the cold war CIA
and FBI have been privatized into various fronts, and especially into foundations.
These days, to be foundation funded often implies a close but surreptitious
link to the intelligence community.

The Philadelphia Platform seeks to unite the antiwar,
impeachment, anti-globalization, labor, civil rights, civil liberties,
fair elections, and related movements into a single united front outside
of the Republican and Democratic Parties. It calls for the immediate impeachment
of Bush and Cheney, and end to all US aggression everywhere, the rollback
of the police state, and rule by people, not bankers, with the entire effort
energized by 9/11 truth. It urges people to engage in mass political education,
to take back the airwaves, and to run for Congress. The Kennebunkport Warning
calls for action to head off the present war emergency, marked by daily
reports of the Cheney faction pressing for a nuclear attack on Iran, to
be covered in turn by a new 9/11 and/or a new Gulf of Tonkin incident.
This danger has been underlined by the recent Israeli bombing of Syria,
and by the August 30 rogue nuclear-armed B-52 affair, with the mysterious
deaths of personnel associated with that incident.

Activists of the 9/11 truth movement will recall Berlet
as the gutter thug brought in by the foundation-backed Amy Goodman on her
deeply compromised Democracy Now program to harass David Ray Griffin a
couple of years ago. Berlet worked for the National Student Association,
which was exposed as a CIA front. His true expertise is in narcotics, which
he acquired during a stint as Washington DC bureau chief for High Times
Magazine. More recently, Berlet appeared on the History Channel's 9/11
Conspiracies broadcast to slander of the entire 9/11 truth movement as
mentally unbalanced individuals who have a pathological need to believe
in conspiracies. Berlet has been slandering 9/11 truth activists for many
years. After these interventions, Berlet's status as a raving enemy of
9/11 truth is beyond dispute. His credentials as a sincere antiwar activist
are equally lacking. Notice below that Berlet, in all his inveighing against
Kennebunkport, never mentions the main themes, which are a new false flag
terror op coming out of Cheney's faction, a nuclear attack on Iran, and
a new world war. These are issues Berlet does not want to publicize.

Instead, Berlet suggests that I am a sock-puppet for
LaRouche. LaRouche drove me out of his organization in 1997, more than
ten years ago. I have nothing in common with LaRouche, whose supporters
have repeatedly slandered me, albeit in terms slightly different from those
used by Berlet. LaRouche is a border guard for the sinister Hillary Clinton-Rahm
Emanuel neocon warmonger machine in the Democratic Party. He is currently
trying to combine that with the notion that Bush is a force for peace with
Putin's Russia ­ a manifest absurdity, since Bush is promoting aggression
against Russia in the form of a nuclear first-strike capability. Contrary
to what Berlet writes, LaRouche has no commitment to 9/11 truth and has
contributed nothing to the 9/11 truth movement. LaRouche has rather sponsored
a personality cult complete with a youth movement which is a parody of
Chairman Mao's Red Guards of the mid-1960s.

From the beginning, supporters of Kennebunkport have
argued that the four signers who claimed they did not sign, and then deplorably
covered their retreat with a barrage of wild charges of forgery, most probably
did so because they feared that their foundation funding might be terminated.
Now, with Berlet's broadside, the role of the Ford Foundation in the entire
matter becomes evident. The Ford Foundation is the mother ship of a whole
array of lesser foundations of both left and right political coloration
who work to perpetuate the dominant power of the financier oligarchy. Thanks
to Berlet, all foundation operatives in the domestic cointelpro apparatus
now know who their immediate enemy is. Everyone who is foundation funded
knows where their bread is buttered, and they are expected to earn their
pay by reacting accordingly. Watch them as they come forward. Persons of
good will can also use the Berlet slander as a reliable moral guide to
what is actually going on here, and join the growing and distinguished
list of supporters of the Kennebunkport warning at actindependent.org.

In short, those who slander and sabotage the Philadelphia-Kennebunkport
convergence strategy are marching together with Chip Berlet under the banner
of the Ford Foundation. Draw your own conclusions carefully. The great
question of a new general war may depend on it.

Webster G. Tarpley

Berlet slander at:

http://www.publiceye.org/feeds/public/berlet/2007

/09/webster-g-tarpleys-toxic-waste-is.html

Comment

From Leland Lehrman

My name is Leland Lehrman. I live in Lamy, NM near the
train station that serves Santa Fe.

I'm running for US Senate against one of the most corrupt
Senators in DC: Pete Domenici.

I also appeared recently on Tarpley's show and commented
to the effect that those spending time destroying the message of the Kennebunkport
Warning were either inexperienced or possibly COINTELPRO.

I would like to revise this position while leaving those
two options in place, for it is clear to me that there are those arrayed
against KW who are in fact COINTELPRO and some who are inexperienced.

However, legitimate criticism of Tarpley et al's methods
and arguments have been made and as a friend of Mr. Tarpley I would like
to acknowledge them on his behalf, although without his permission.

Berlet is without doubt COINTELPRO. His Ford Foundation
(CIA) funding is proven and his appearances on Democracy Now and the History
Channel to counter Griffin and 911 truth are all the evidence you need
for that.

His attack on Tarpley is not proof of Tarpley's bona
fides, but it is pretty close. I have worked with Tarpley at relatively
close quarters for several months now, and have examined his past work
on the Red Brigades in Italy and his biography of George Bush Senior. His
Synthetic Terror book comes on the heels of long effort to expose oligarchy's
control mechanisms.

Oligarchy is in fact the problem, whether religious,
racial, classist, ideological or nationalist. Oligarchy hides behind any
and all divisive doctrines, manipulating populations through war, false
religion (mind control) and related scams such as fractional reserve banking,
which are really no more than sophisticated gambling rackets designed to
quickly parasitize a host population and render the parasite supremely
powerful.

Read Smedley Butler's War is a Racket for a good analysis
from a US military leader who saw it up close.

So now, to some of the more delicate questions regarding
the signers and their actions. I have seen Cindy Sheehan allegedly backtrack
before on statements that she made, for example that she was concerned
about Israel's influence on American foreign policy. It is possible that
she did so again. I am not yet quite clear on the circumstances of the
signing and the aftermath, but I am certain that feelings were hurt all
the way around, to include Webster and Bruce Marshall as well as the retractors.

The Kennebunkport Warning was and is a well-stated, timely
message to a groggy but searching American public on the dangers our country
and world now face. Even if the signers weren't clear on what the warning
really said, the fact that it was assigned Hoax Status on the internet
when it was a very supportable document, with masses of evidence far in
excess of the cited Yuval Aviv story, meant that Tarpley and Marshall immediately
felt sabotaged, although there is still some uncertainty about where that
actually comes from.

On the subject of LaRouche, I have never seen a more
complex situation reduced to such an unbelievably useless caricature as
Mr. LaRouche and his network. Anyone who has actually taken the time to
read their intelligence reports from around the world, their analyses of
philosophical, political and financial situations and their work on the
cultural infiltration by the CIA into the postwar era would never for a
moment reduce their value to zero even if there are grave problems with
their tactics, other positions or egos.

It is rare that any voice we listen to says everything
we want to hear, but that does not mean that everything it says is useless
or wrong, and the psychological "slides" generated by the word
LaRouche are the same as those generated by the word "conspiracy theory"
or "antisemitism."

This guilt by association is a very slippery slope, although
I do agree that Nico Haupt and Jim Fetzer's TV fakery promotion are extremely
disconcerting and I have not yet determined Webster's position on the subject.
I have a message in to him right now asking for some understanding.

One of my specialties is fence mending, as I understand
and respect personal situations as well as political gravity. My opinion
is that Webster and Bruce's feelings were hurt badly by the signer retractions
and the subsequent trashing of their very important work and lashed out
in ways that were perhaps not as understanding as they might have been.
However, there has been precious little understanding for why Webster and
Bruce might feel the way they do.

According to them, the retractors had ample chance to
read the document but got nervous when the spotlight got turned on. They
further assert that one of the signers has actually admitted to having
signed it. It strikes me that a certain amount of responsibility shifting
may have in fact happened once the four activists in question realized
the gravity of the situation. It is even reasonable to assume that some
of them may have become concerned that their funding may be at stake. This
is of course an issue in the "activist" world.

I like to think that I would have simply crossed off
their names and wished them well myself, but in the heat of the moment,
accusations ran wild and reputations were on the line. Perhaps one might
say that Webster and Bruce overreacted in some ways. But those asserting
that the KW was a hoax were also overreacting.

Cosmos' handling of Bruce on his radio show was heavy
handed and didn't recognized Bruce's obvious emotionality as worthy of
respect, and therefore the emotional pain never healed and what may be
a needless disturbance in the force goes on.

Everyone from Wolsey to Cosmos to Col. Sparks seem to
be asking Webster and Bruce to grow up, but are they really demonstrating
themselves to be entirely loving and generously parental? I'm afraid not.

Discussions of the four retractors put forth the idea
that they "courteously" retracted and wished the KW supporters
well, but is it not possible to be courteous as you kill?

Sure it is, and the coldness of it, the air of superiority
and the "well-wishing" associated with the casual death blow
of "hoax" allegations would be all the more cruel if it were
cloaked in courtesy.

One of the other problems with the KW detractors is that
although they claim not to have any problems with the substance of the
warning and the hundreds of news items on which it is based, the years
of research that is required to understand it and express it eloquently,
their focus leads them completely off the track of the very important message.

9/11 is important on its own, but its importance may
be vastly greater in the context of current events, as a powerful tool
of resistance and positive change. At the very least, KW detractors should
be assisting the actual work of the KW, namely using the 9/11 understandings
we now have to become serious players in the upcoming strategic and activist
decision making process in Washington, on Main Street and around the world.
Why is this not happening in parallel? Why are the credits given to Mr.
Tarpley so short-winded and offhanded on the way to constant thrashing?

Although I am certainly thankful for Cindy Sheehan's
leadership in the peace movement, it might have been more useful for her
to have stood in the way of her son's enlistment in the first place.

While she was agonizing over her son's service and eventual
death, Mr. Tarpley had already put in decades educating people about the
methods of the oligarchical control system. If I had to say who was more
valuable to the movement right now, I might have to choose Webster. For
all his personal failings, many of which are on display in this current
ruckus, Cindy has an equal amount of them, and arrogant judgmental attitudes
towards Mr. Tarpley and idolization of Ms. Sheehan are not the easily defendable
positions that KW detractors assert.

The issue is more complex, I'm afraid, and specifically,
there is some type of knee jerk protection for the feelings of Sheehan
et al, while those of Tarpley and Marshall are not considered. There may
be a reversed sexism happening here, with the women's feelings somehow
immediately assumed to be more important than the men's. All of these
issues are entirely human, and give me reason to hope that reconciliation
can still happen. No voice has really tried to do that, so I am hoping
mine can start the process. It is of course important that impeachment,
911 truth, peace, labor, civil rights, spiritual, environmental and economic
justice movements work hand in hand to move our world to a better place,
but that means we all need to do a little more understanding of "the
other" and a little less judging and caricaturing.

Finally, I would very much welcome the opportunity to
join Cosmos on his radio program to advance this discussion and would be
pleased to talk with any of you at length. Please call, email or send a
phone number.